I don't know if you missed my post at the bottom of page 2 (I'm sure you're juggling a bunch of things right now to stay on top of this event), but my questions were not rhetorical and I would really appreciate a response to at least the first paragraph, if possible:

in what way does Snowden's opinion on Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne from ten years ago help readers understand the broader context of his leaking of classified NSA information? In what way do scantily clad photos of and emo blog posts written by Snowden's girlfriend help us better understand the motivation behind his choice to reveal that information, the wider political implications of that choice, and the general topic of individual freedom versus government intrusion into the private lives of its citizens?

Many people are trying to understand the justification behind publishing stories about these seemingly irrelevant things. As far as I can tell, that justification has thus far been, simply, "Snowden and Mills are public figures and other outlets are covering this stuff too". I've yet to see you or anyone else actually address the question of how things like the Max Payne opinion above are relevant to the story of leaked information. I mean, if the aim is serious journalism, as distinct from tabloid human interest, then that relevance would be a key consideration when considering whether or not to publish, no?

Alternatively, if what you're basically saying here is that as soon as a person becomes a public figure (as defined by whether or not other outlets are publishing articles about them), anything and everything about them is relevant to the story, however personal, seemingly trivial or mundane, then I would appreciate that being made clear.

But Snowden posted his email address for everyone to see on an Ars thread in 2005. I could have written that entire story just by using the advanced search function of the forums.

No, you couldn't have because until you read it in the media you had no way of knowing that "TheTrueHOOHA" == Snowden. Other outlets speculated and concluded that this was his username, but only Ars was in a position to confirm that for certain. By posting that information from its own registration records, it acted against the spirit of its own privacy statement, imo, if not against the letter of it.

Snowden is of interest: his actions, his motivations, what effects they will have on government and public behavior. But his personal relationships? Is Mullin planning on calling up Snowden's parents next and asking them, "How do you feel now that your son can be tried for treason? Are you distraught? Have you been crying?"

Uh, journalists do that all the time. The problem is Ars didn't do that, they just rehashed forum posts with very little insight.

No, tabloid reporters do that all the time. Serious journalists do not.

Ken & Staff, a lot of the criticism is from people who've been posting over a decade and have 4- or 5-digit post counts, and are forum regulars (rather than the much much more typical for news stories semi-newbies).I think that's highly significant, and indicates you're at a disconnect from your core users. Personally, I don't think I've ever posted so many posts in a 24-hr period.

Ok, I was wondering about this, so I quickly paged through the threads and put together a list of established posters with objections. The definition of established was a bit fuzzy- I started with 1000+ postcounts and years of tenure and eventually extended down to about 400 for lots of years of tenure. This was rough: I was careful not to list anyone who liked the article but if you see someone with 400 instead of 4000 it was a quick review.

Here's the list for the girlfriend story and/or the staff response:BlackHexScruffyNerfxcmtLinuxGuyBastardWalshicuskoolraapDuodecimalMightySpoonelhZakmasterbinkyjoshvNimdokmalorbthylafhFrosty Grinwindnwarreflex-croftRictusdsleifkruzesOoklaTheMokkrimhorncebinpherschneeGrayrestwaveletinpherDavebopapadageEdgar Alan Poohup through page 10

Ken & Staff, a lot of the criticism is from people who've been posting over a decade and have 4- or 5-digit post counts, and are forum regulars (rather than the much much more typical for news stories semi-newbies).I think that's highly significant, and indicates you're at a disconnect from your core users. Personally, I don't think I've ever posted so many posts in a 24-hr period.

Ok, I was wondering about this, so I quickly paged through the threads and put together a list of established posters with objections. The definition of established was a bit fuzzy- I started with 1000+ postcounts and years of tenure and eventually extended down to about 400 for lots of years of tenure.

Here's the list for the girlfriend story and/or the staff response, with * and explanation where I thought I should flag in case I misunderstand their opinion:...

And here's the list for the Snowden-as-ars-poster story:killing_timeTarg8terPaulWTAMUhazel-rahundervillainShavanoThe_Mighty_SquidDeviationghost55PhysicsGuykleshasArs of AresamadannetblazdivisionbyzeroRagashingokruzesSemi OnFrosty GrinpsdGrayrestTwitLangdondivisionbyzeroJunonZanshinZinger1gimfredEphemeronvishnuFrankDCatRagashingonoobwaveletGrayrestwindnwartruepuskanother ars accounthuxWalshicusCPXSinclairZX81PostulatorAndyGCarabasjoshvYourOldBuddyPostulatorDarkseiddaemoniosbarefootDaveboJimboPalmerGoofazoidkruzesJohn Is My Name*erikenghMoonSharkkruzesFblueTetraptouswallinblpapadagesimple_simonZaphod*xcmt (" this remains news, however low-brow")rotationalschizomilkmanqst330UncompetativeJurrasicArs of Ares*EmeraldArcana ("Then you can pat yourselves on the back about how cool it is that you kind of knew about this guy before he was cool without going all data-mining on him.")aeberbachhazel-rahenraged_camelinpherAstlorzee_jayMr.XPaulWTAMUjoshvThe_Analog_Kidlensam69StuckInaCubePenforhireSuperDaveMatthiasFnjpozner*Petruchio ("nothing in the staff response has indicated one way or another that they'll self-censor about this material in the future. If anything, the response (from Ken, Aurich, and Peter that I've seen) has been pretty much unanimous in saying that they think they did the right thing and that they don't give a shit what we think about it, even in the face of OVERWHELMINGLY negative feedback.")waqarHack-n-Slashup through page 26

I have thought a bit about why these articles rub me the wrong way. This is just my $0.02, so take it or leave it.

1) These articles are extremely short on information applicable to the NSA scandal. It would be one thing for Ars to post an in-depth article about Snowden's mental journey and the surrounding conditions throughout this ordeal, as many publications have done with Bradley Manning, but these articles are a far-cry from anything like that. The only thing these articles tell us is that Snowden has (had) a girlfriend that is now sad that he's left, Snowden was an average Ars nerd, and that Snowden had some political opinions some time ago just like any poster who visits the Bad PlaceTM. None of this information really has anything to do with the NSA scandal or why Snowden leaked the information. I suppose one could play the angle that the average nerd/hacker is somewhat bad at keeping secrets like the Open Letter to the NSA, but these Snowden articles do little to suggest that. The girlfriend piece is especially disconcerting given that it has fuck-all to do with the bigger picture. It is also somewhat creepy given the prevalence of personal pictures of her in the article. I'm sure I'll see more of her on 4chan tonight, but there's really no need to see her pictures on Ars.

2) I am somewhat taken aback by needless dissection of Snowden's general Ars posts by Ars staffers without any second thoughts. It would be one thing if he had revealed some kind of plan to leak the info in an Ars post or there was some kind of smoking gun, but there wasn't. Only the last quote had any bearing on the NSA scandal, and even then, it could have been written by pretty much any Ars member. As such, there was no real reason to make an article dedicated to semi-random, irrelevant Ars posts by Snowden - other than to wave a big flag to attract attention to Ars itself due to own of its members being tied to this scandal.

3) A lot of members post rather intimate things in the Lounge (family issues, birth of children, life crises), the Velvet Room (sexual relationships), and the Soap Box (various political views). Although I realize I have no expectation of privacy on Ars, this community still has some unwritten rules regarding privacy. Mainly, don't be a dick. The Ars staff are the last people I would expect to go rifling through a members' posts with reckless abandon, regardless of the consequences. Just because you can connect the dots and figure out a poster's real name, address, etc, doesn't mean you should. Suffice to say, I think the actions of the Ars staff in this regard are going to result in a chilling effect around the forums.

While I'm sure these articles were written with better intentions than most of the readers assume, the lack of foresight is still troubling. The girlfriend article serves no real purpose, and the random Ars posts by Snowden will only be picked up gossip rags (i.e. most of the media) and result in fear mongering and ridiculous assertions (Snowden liked anime, which must have driven him to betray his country, etc). I would expect the Ars staff to be more aware of the role they play in this affair and act responsibly, rather than enabling tabloid journalism and shrugging their shoulders (everyone else is doing it, so what's the problem?).

Neither article was in keeping with the ars 'spirit' and Ive been here a very fucking long time.

this is the first time ars has actually done something to irritate me

Neither article should have gone live, theyre little more than narrative poison. Doesnt matter if you agree with what he did, or even like it, all these articles are doing is putting negative connutations on snippets. The girlfriend, the running off, the `hiding`, the being in hong kong which is clarly a godless commie state, being a high school drop out (who worked for the mil and cia)

an ad hominem assault if you will.

Its likely not intentional, or malicious, but in putting selective items up all youre doing is flagging negatives - youre influencing readers negatively without giving any counterbalance, or looking at the other side of the story.

It`d be the equivalent of someone posting PeterB's infamous 'spunk on the carpet' story, on every single article he publishes.

Its factual, it happened, quotes and posts can be linked, readers should know what kind of person Peter is, what relevance it is to the new hybrid battery saving tech in the new Intels ?

Really not very happy with either article

I find so much on this site that does not jive with my worldview, and just my sentiments in general that this sort of thing is just another article. I haven't been here as long as you, but I've been around long enough to lament the loss of the PC Enthusiasts Resource and moved on. There is a journalistic reason for this article, as tech and data secrecy form our daily lives. I don't like the foci of a lot of Ars these days, but just because I don't agree with the content doesn't mean Ars and its editorial staff are wrong.

Suffice to say, I think the actions of the Ars staff in this regard are going to result in a chilling effect around the forums.

Just curious, do the actions of Buzzfeed leave you chilled? Not being snarky, serious question, does the coverage (much more in depth than ours, published before ours if that wasn't clear) other places give you the same feeling?

Suffice to say, I think the actions of the Ars staff in this regard are going to result in a chilling effect around the forums.

Just curious, do the actions of Buzzfeed leave you chilled? Not being snarky, serious question, does the coverage (much more in depth than ours, published before ours if that wasn't clear) other places give you the same feeling?

Yes, but the fact that Ars staffers participated in this mess reflects poorly on them and makes it feel like an unspoken bond of trust has been broken somewhere. Ars isn't just a random news site. It's a community, and I actually pay to be a part of it.

As I said before, I realize I have no expectation of privacy when I post on Ars. Anyone can do a post search for any user and construct a profile, connect the dots, figure out personal info with a little luck, and then post the info on the front page of a major news site. Tomorrow, there could be a new article on Ars: "chronomitch's life on Ars Technica", detailing my often-conflicting political views, shitty love life, and interests in video games and anime. I doubt there would be anything there I'm truly ashamed of, but it still doesn't mean I want my identity outed by Ars or my post history analyzed and put on the front page of a major news site. The only saving grace I have is that there's no real reason for Ars or any other news site to do this to me because I'm a rather boring person of little consequence in the grand scheme of things.

I fully expect other news sites to stoop to the level of gossip and "out" their members if it means making a quick buck, but I expect more from Ars. I feel like the information in the two articles could have been handled in a much better way. For example, at a later date, when more [relevant] information was known, Ars could write a more comprehensive article - one that didn't needlessly analyze Snowden's post history or include pictures of his former girlfriend. A sentence or two could easily surmise the relevant information in those articles, rather than making it feel like the latest gossip.

I'm trying not to make this into some kind of angry rant. This is just the way I feel. I believe you guys (the Ars staffers) had the best of intentions in mind here, but it was still a bad decision that's going to have negative consequences, IMO. I hope you will keep all of these comments in mind the next time a situation like this arises.

Also, there's something ironic here considering we're talking about the privacy of forum posts and personally identifiable information when this whole mess has to do with the US government tracking all of our phone calls. This would make for a good article I think.

I don't know if you missed my post at the bottom of page 2 (I'm sure you're juggling a bunch of things right now to stay on top of this event), but my questions were not rhetorical and I would really appreciate a response to at least the first paragraph, if possible:

in what way does Snowden's opinion on Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne from ten years ago help readers understand the broader context of his leaking of classified NSA information? In what way do scantily clad photos of and emo blog posts written by Snowden's girlfriend help us better understand the motivation behind his choice to reveal that information, the wider political implications of that choice, and the general topic of individual freedom versus government intrusion into the private lives of its citizens?

Many people are trying to understand the justification behind publishing stories about these seemingly irrelevant things. As far as I can tell, that justification has thus far been, simply, "Snowden and Mills are public figures and other outlets are covering this stuff too". I've yet to see you or anyone else actually address the question of how things like the Max Payne opinion above are relevant to the story of leaked information. I mean, if the aim is serious journalism, as distinct from tabloid human interest, then that relevance would be a key consideration when considering whether or not to publish, no?

Alternatively, if what you're basically saying here is that as soon as a person becomes a public figure (as defined by whether or not other outlets are publishing articles about them), anything and everything about them is relevant to the story, however personal, seemingly trivial or mundane, then I would appreciate that being made clear.

Thanks.

I'm +1 to this.

It's easy to go in and defend the hyperbolic bits, or get into the nitty gritty of the legal stuff, you've got lawyers to help for starters.

I want to know why you guys felt that most of either of those articles was actually relevant.

If you want to say "We stand by being okay to write articles in that vein" that's fine (though likely unpopular) but you seem to not remotely want to take on board any of the more nuanced feedback at all. The only thing I saw in this thread (sorry if I missed more) is " Yes, we could have done a better job with the payoff on the GF story".

Also much of the debate goes back and forth between the two articles. They had different flaws, but the overriding sentiment for me in both was that there was an awful lot of pretty mindless (and sometimes downright voyeuristic) fluff in both. In the case of the GF one almost all of it, though I don't see how you could possibly put much in there that actually is relevant bar the fact he's left her, she's real and they had made a life together plus noting how she was dismantling much of her online presence (pointing out that the ship had sailed in that sense would likewise be reasonable reporting given the site's main thrust). In the case of the article of "Ed on Ars" the fact he's on here is genuinely news, and worth mentioning, but if you're going to dissect a member of your own community (and all that entails) at least do a better job, discussions of game reviews? *really*?

Regardless of the merits/ethics with respect to general journalistic practice, legal, ars editorial stance the articles were, IMO largely vapid and trashy. I'm intrigued as to whether you really think they weren't. If you think they *could* have stayed true to their original intent, but be rewritten to be much (much) better that's one thing. If you think they needed only a few tweaks to be better that's another.

I honestly don't know what you think of them in that regard, but this conversation is happening in lots of places so I might have missed it.

Lee's stories in which he spoke of his love for Mass Effect and the job where he met his wife are much more human interest than tech stories.

Hadn't seen them previously, and glanced through just now -- they're very much an in-depth product review, but done from a personal perspective. I don't consider them pure human-interest. It's still primarily a product review, on a subject clearly within the Ars purview (computer gaming), and gives the reader relevant info as well as discussion (and the subjective, personal tone certainly fits an activity like game playing, and has nothing creepy, sensationalist or prurient about it) .

In contrast, the article on Snowden's GF did not shed any light on his actions, let alone contribute anything (facts or analysis) to public debates about privacy, national security or whistleblowing. As the article itself stated, she had no involvement in Snowden's actions and found out only after the fact.

As Ken affirmed, the only justifications for the article was that she was a public figure, that is, has celebrity status (and clearly the fact she's hot and did poledancing was a big part of that), and that other news outlets were wrtiting about her. That's yellow "journalism", period.Glaringly, despite repeated requests by several people, none of the Ars staffers who commented have even tried to engage and specifically explain how either of the articles actually contributes to the topics. Until they do, IMO they don't deserve to be called serious journalists.

Suffice to say, I think the actions of the Ars staff in this regard are going to result in a chilling effect around the forums.

Just curious, do the actions of Buzzfeed leave you chilled? Not being snarky, serious question, does the coverage (much more in depth than ours, published before ours if that wasn't clear) other places give you the same feeling?

You guys keep coming back to deal with these questions (whether you guys outed them, whether or not other publications did it, etc), and have largely avoided the questions/comments that were raised by that.

A lot of it is the response to your membership that you've given. When MANY members express that they felt uncomfortable (or worse) rather than saying "I'm sorry you feel that way, we believed this story was in good taste, but we'll consider your viewpoint for next time" (even if you didn't actually consider it, there was a lot of "well we can do it, because it's legal" or "everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't we?" or "Are you serious? The fact that you are saying we shouldn't is unbeleivable".

Suffice to say, I think the actions of the Ars staff in this regard are going to result in a chilling effect around the forums.

Just curious, do the actions of Buzzfeed leave you chilled? Not being snarky, serious question, does the coverage (much more in depth than ours, published before ours if that wasn't clear) other places give you the same feeling?

It does, and it should, unfortunately we have no control over that. It happened and that's that. When an external entity peers in and exploits information in the forum for a story, it's uncomfortable. When the site itself does it, it rises to a new level. It's more uncomfortable since, for better or worse, the subscribers and registered users expected more tact. Not just "hey it's done, we'll follow along."

In this case Snowden wasn't the story, Ars was. "OMG He posts on an Internet forum!" wouldn't have garnered much in terms of an article I guess. "OMG He posts on the ARS forum!" does. I get that it has to be acknowledged, but I would think that would be more in the form of :

"Hey, it's been reported that Ed Snowden allegedly posted here under a nickname: blahblahblah. While we cannot confirm the identity of one of our users, it does, if true give us a view into the real person behind the story. Forum posts only reveal so much about a person, Ars will continue to follow this to provide a better of picture of who Edward Snowden is."

1) have a good username/password manager, such as LastPass, KeePass, etc.2) Use said manager for all website fora that aren't supposed to be at least partly for people you know in meatspace (i.e. not Facebook)3) Each forum gets a unique username and randomly-generated password unrelated to any username used on any other site, stored in the manager4) Create an email account on a free webmail service used only for forum registration, also with a username unrelated to anything you use for social-networking sites.

Profit, or at least don't get doxed when you get famous. I certainly wouldn't want some of the crap I said as a teen getting out if I got famous in my 50s, for instance.

Annoying, though, because having a pseudonym consistent across websites means that you can serendipitously meet friends from other sites.

The Ars staff are the last people I would expect to go rifling through a members' posts with reckless abandon, regardless of the consequences.

You do realize that other sources "rifled through" his posts and quoted it long before Ars reported the story, don't you?

Ars basically just reported what was already found.

If your objection is one of tastefulness, or whether this is the kind of article that Ars should publish, that's one thing. But if your objection is one of privacy, it's ill-placed, as the information is available to anyone who looks for it, and furthermore, Ars didn't break the story, or provide the information.

You claim that you have no expectation of privacy, but every aspect of your post says otherwise. You very clearly have an expectation of privacy. If you didn't, you wouldn't be upset about this information being reported on.

Many of us do not think the second article is an invasion of privacy or violation of trust, so much as it is cheap trash. The first article is especially so, being no more than creeper fodder. But that gets ignored so you can stand on your high horse and tell us that we are over reacting so you can get a pat on the head by Ken.

I will repeat.. shitty yellow journalism. Ars was the last place I thought I would see voyeur articles defended as journalism. The fact that the rest of the media is doing it is not a defense of the shit they all shovel on a daily basis.

Like I said, Ken and the staff ignore the lurid, voyeuristic nature of the articles and that they are basically crap, especially the first one, with the cover being that everyone else is doing it, and they are public figures, which are nice ways to dodge the shit they just published.

My other objection to the first article is that it is basically stalker/creeper/objectifying instead of being a real story in any way, and seems hypocritical when they recently went on an anti-misogyny crusade in the fora and front page comments. It is also bad form to sift through and publish member posts in a way that is simply show and tell without a real editorial process to relate it to the breaking story as well as the stated journalistic purpose of the site.

Yes, but the fact that Ars staffers participated in this mess reflects poorly on them and makes it feel like an unspoken bond of trust has been broken somewhere. Ars isn't just a random news site. It's a community, and I actually pay to be a part of it.

Okay, fair enough. You see my point though, it's just odd to me that people go "well after this I'll be more careful what I post!" when the reality is it's always been that way, and is outside of our control. I'm not ignoring your feelings, just trying to explore the big picture.

Say I was to leave ars could all my posts be deleted on request?Not that I don't like it here or anything, just you know asking...

No. We don't delete posts, we feel very strongly about maintaining a public record of Ars. This is a real founding principle of the forum, stemming from Ken's background as a historian, and there were times back in the day when our requirements to not delete things were actually a real pain, from a technology standpoint.

The reality is though even if we did, this stuff is cached all over the internet, once you post something publicly it's often very difficult if not impossible to really pull it back.

We do make exceptions for people who email us with specific problems, old posts that contain sensitive data that are causing issues, we're not heartless or inflexible. But definitely don't mass delete anything.

Yes, but the fact that Ars staffers participated in this mess reflects poorly on them and makes it feel like an unspoken bond of trust has been broken somewhere. Ars isn't just a random news site. It's a community, and I actually pay to be a part of it.

Okay, fair enough. You see my point though, it's just odd to me that people go "well after this I'll be more careful what I post!" when the reality is it's always been that way, and is outside of our control. I'm not ignoring your feelings, just trying to explore the big picture.

I appreciate your engagement and sincerity.

Trying a different angle:

Is it your honest opinion that both of the stories in their original form informed the public and elevated the level of discourse on each topic? Because that's what people come here for, and technical possibilities aren't what govern emotional reactions about what a particular person or entity does.

I realize by phrasing it this way, it's become essentially rhetorical.

...work on Dotcom evolved over half a year and largely with his cooperation. This work on Snowden is new, and with cooperation. Who knows where it will lead. We're not about to sit on our ass and not cover what we believe is news, waiting for something even bigger. And we sure as hell are not going to sit and do nothing while every major media outlet is writing about Snowden on Ars.

I'm reluctant to drag this on further, but something just stood out here for me, which I've emboldened. Am I reading this correctly as saying that Snowden is aware of and coöperating with Ars Technica on these stories?

There's quite a few issues with the last two articles by Joe, but my personal complaint is that they're just poorly written articles that sound like they were banged out in 30minutes. The second article in particular (the on Snowden) doesn't offer anything except a collection of quotes, with no direction, interpretation, or discussion. I feel the same way about Cesar Torres' articles about forum posts. In both cases, they basically boil down to "Hey guys! This guy said this, and then this guy said this! And then this girl said this!"

Seriously, just use a bot to scrape the forum and write these articles and they'd come out the same.

The Ars staff are the last people I would expect to go rifling through a members' posts with reckless abandon, regardless of the consequences.

You do realize that other sources "rifled through" his posts and quoted it long before Ars reported the story, don't you?

Ars basically just reported what was already found.

First, that's not correct - earlier, Ken posted* that Ars staff had themselves gone through his posts looking for stuff to publish.

Second, as already pointed out, the fact that other outlets made the [forum name] -> [real name] connection earlier doesn't magically absolve Ars from the privacy obligations - whether express or implied - it has toward its users. Those other outlets did some digging, made some assumptions, and drew some conclusions. That's very different from Ars going into its private, secured registration database and then publicly announcing that, yes, [forum name] == [real name], oh and here's the email address he used to register at our site.

Third, I think there is a reasonable expectation of a certain level of privacy. Ars has a history of posting forum comments to front page articles, e.g. "Forum user '[nickname]' had this to say about [article topic]." I don't think anyone objects to that. However, there's a big difference between that and, "Forum user '[nickname]' is [real name], his registration email is [email], he had this to say about [something irrelevant to article topic] and here's a link to his hot girlfriend's racy photos". Until now, I don't think forum members ever thought that Ars would publish that kind of information and I think it's reasonable to criticize that as a departure from the existing convention of respecting users' privacy.

That's very different from Ars going into its private, secured registration database and then publicly announcing that, yes, [forum name] == [real name], oh and here's the email address he used to register at our site.

We did not "confirm" it was him in the manner you just depicted. We said it looked like him, which everyone else had _already said_ for the same exact reasons. Snowden published his registration email address himself, and had done so on other sites. We believe strongly that those posts are his, but not because of a database registration. In fact, the very idea that a simple email address can magically "confirm" someone's identity doesn't even make sense. There is nothing in his profile, public or otherwise, that can prove that it was him. The belief that it is him is based on circumstantial information, no different from that used by everyone else.

This is why you will not find a single media report confirming that the posts were made by him. I was contacted by over a dozen major media outlets, and I could NOT confirm that it was him. And I have full access to everything. And even if I could personally have discovered this somehow, I would not have confirmed or reported that information.

Finally, Joe does not have access to that database, no do editors in general. The number of people with that access is very limited.

I feel as though I've explained the reasoning for the stories many times. I suppose one last attempt might be appreciated by someone.

Context: Snowden is on the run/in hiding, and many people want to understand what would make someone do what he has done, given that there is an extreme personal cost and what some would also view as potentially illegal if not treasonous activity.

Story #1, the “girlfriend story.”

As I have repeatedly said, I wish that this story had been framed better. It went up under the supervision of a junior editor, which is a unavoidable fact given the staff size. That said, what the story was meant to do and what it actually did is not far apart. The story was meant to highlight some of the personal cost paid by Snowden, and apparently involuntarily paid for by personal relations.

Enter the person closest to him and his wife: Ms. Mills. The story relates how Mrs. Mills was left out of Snowden's decision, and found herself suddenly alone, uncertain of what was going on. We also learned that she was a supporter of Internet freedom, and at least from her perspective, the relationship was quite serious. Nevertheless, Snowden appears to have departed and undertaken his actions without involving Ms. Mills, or even being in contact with her apparently.

Yes, her last post on Instagram was her sitting in her underwear addressing the world regarding her loss. Yes, we did link to that picture. No, we never embedded that picture in the story. Yes, we indicated that there were many photographs of her in her underwear in her feed. As has been repeatedly explained, we did this in order to make it clear that we were not just trying to link up some random photo of a woman in her underwear.

Those who wish to view it as slut shaming, as Joe going for titillation, etc., all I can say is that you are wrong. I think Ars Technica has a history of supporting women’s issues, and I personally find it impossible to believe that anyone who has followed us for a long time truly believe that we were out to be sexually exploitative. And to those who say that we only covered it because the woman was attractive, you’re just wrong. There is no way to prove that you are wrong, just as there is no way to prove that you are right. But I'm not going to take ridiculous accusations seriously. There's not enough time in the day for me to do so.

In closing: we thought it was relevant, I continue to think it was relevant, I believe the story was not framed appropriately, and I think the language describing the imagery that was not safe for work was awkward and invited some people to think that we were linking it for less than savory reasons.

Story #2, Snowden was an Ars user

This one is pretty obvious from my point of view, as biography is a mainstay of journalism, and here we have primary source material for the construction of biography. It is routine for historians (my technical academic training) and journalists to use biography to paint a deeper picture of a person. What is and is not relevant for understanding a person is really in the eye of the beholder. I think it would be ludicrous for me to get into a debate with someone about whether or not details of Snowden as a gamer are relevant. I want a three-dimensional picture of the man, and that includes these details.

The question of whether or not the profile that emerged was good enough is a completely separate question from why we bothered to do it. It's either worth doing, or it is not. You can't very well argue that it's entirely irrelevant, but, we sure should have done a better job. That makes no sense.

As for the state in which it was published, there is no doubt that it was a shorter piece. It was not a feature report that someone had spent days on. Once we realized that several other publications were already publishing stories about his posts on Ars Technica, we felt as though we needed to acknowledge it and we had about 5 hours to do it thanks to some other commitments. We chose to do so by writing a quick report sampling some of his posts, and Joe attempted to pick a purposely broad collection of posts that he felt were representative.

I should clarify that by "framing" I really mean something more akin to: a kind of thesis, an explanation of what we believe the take away points are, etc. Sometimes we do this, other times we don't. It usually depends on how obvious we think a story's import is. Clearly in this case we were wrong about how people would feel with the framing as it was.

Regarding the second story, in the past I had the impression that ars took the time to do things right rather than look at it from the "We've got 5 hours, what can we do?" angle.

The problem is that there is always more to do than we have time for. So budgeting is necessary, and in this instance, we felt the weight of considerable media attention. We were getting emails, phone calls, and I half suspected someone to show up at my house. In the moment, it felt as though we needed to cover it and cover it quickly.

We also did not believe that getting a story out quickly would preclude us from covering it more in the future.

Thanks for that post Ken. It made a lot of sense. Hopefully there are some lessons for you and your team here. I know from experience that you guys will grow and develop a better understanding of your audience from this kerfuffle.

Thanks Ken, many thanks,this was by far your best response on this issue, it is elaborate and feels very honest.

I agree that the subject is certainly something that Ars should have covered. I just don't agree with much of the post-hoc justification for doing it during what possibly were very emotional moments (getting that amount of criticism is hard not to take personally, I know, I have been an editor for two years, about to start my third year after a hiatus), much of my criticism has also revolved around framing, style/tone.